3.8 Proceedings Paper

Performance Analysis of an Input-Series-Output-Parallel LLC Resonant Converter with Parameters Mismatch

出版社

IEEE
DOI: 10.1109/ECCE47101.2021.9595433

关键词

Input-series-output-parallel; input voltage sharing; LLC resonant converter; dc-dc converter; GaN converter

资金

  1. Efficient Power Conversion Cooperation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ISOP converters allow the use of low voltage devices in high voltage applications, leading to modularity and increased efficiency. However, parameter mismatch between converter modules can result in input voltage and current imbalance. Analysis of resonant tank parameter mismatch in an ISOP LLC converter shows that the ratio of resonant inductor Lr and magnetizing inductor Lm significantly impacts input voltage sharing.
Input-series-output-parallel (ISOP) converters enable the use of low voltage devices in high voltage applications. Additional benefits include modularity and increased efficiency due to improved device figure-of-merit (FOM) for low voltage devices. A ISOP system typically consists of many converter modules. In order to ensure proper system operation, voltage and current among each module should be equal. However, parameter mismatch is inevitable between converter modules, causing input voltage and current unbalanced. In this paper, performance of an ISOP LLC converter with resonant tank parameter mismatch is analyzed. Impedance model analysis of system input voltage sharing (IVS) is established and conducted under first harmonic approximation (FHA) assumption. Analysis shows that the ratio of resonant inductor Lr and magnetizing inductor Lm has a major impact on input voltage sharing, while voltage sharing is not affected significantly by L-m value. To achieve an ISOP LLC with good input voltage sharing, small L-r/L-m ratio is expected. A 3kW, 400V to 48V four-module ISOP LLC is developed to verify the conclusion and good input voltage sharing property is demonstrated by simulations and experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据